In modern art, the increasing resemblance of art objects to everyday objects raised the threat of eroding of any real difference between works of art and other things. Barnett Newman railed against both Duchamp’s readymades and “Bauhaus screwdriver designers” who were elevated to the ranks of artists by the Museum of 01/09 Modern Art’s doctrine of “Good Design.”1 The danger for art was the same in both cases: the dissolving of the dividing line between works of art and everyday objects. Just as ancient art proper should never be confused with the craft of “women basket weavers,” modern art should never be confused with a screwdriver or urinal.2 In the 1960s, Clement Greenberg would also Sven Lütticken worry that a blank sheet of paper or a table would become readable as art, that the boundary between artworks and “arbitrary objects” was Art and eroding.3 While not evincing any Modernist anxieties about readymades, Paul Chan’s recent Thingness, Part assertion that “a work of art is both more and less than a thing” shows renewed concerns I: Breton’s Ball regarding such an assimilation – in a context marked, until quite recently, by an unprecedented market boom in which works of and Duchamp’s art seemed to be situated in a continuum of luxury goods spanning from Prada bags to luxury Carrot yachts.4 ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBut what does it mean to say that an artwork is both more and less than a thing? The notion of the thing is prominent in contemporary theory, and one might say that the thing has emerged as something that is both more and less t o r than an object. In W. J. T. Mitchell’s words: r a C s ’ p “Things” are no longer passively waiting for n m e a k a concept, theory, or sovereign subject to h c i c t u t arrange them in ordered ranks of ü D L d objecthood. “The Thing” rears its head – a n n e a v rough beast or sci-fi monster, a repressed l l S a Ê returnee, an obdurate materiality, a B 0 s 1 ’ 5 0 stumbling block, and an object lesson. n 2 o t y r e r a B u Rather than building a wall between art and r : I b t e r thingness, the work of art should be analyzed as f a P — just such a sci-fi monster. If objects are named , s 3 s 1 and categorized, part of a system of objects, e # n l g thingness is resistant to such ordered a n n i r h objecthood. If we grant that a work of art is both u T o j d more and less than other types of things, this x n u a l t f should not be regarded as an incentive to r - e A exacerbate and fetishize those differences, but rather as a point of departure for analyzing the complex interrelationships of artworks with these other things – and for examining certain works of art as problematizing and transforming this very relationship.6 ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊA prominent proponent of the thing in recent theory is Bruno Latour, who has taken it upon himself to reveal “the terrible flaws of 09.17.12 / 20:11:27 EDT dualism,” which marked modernity.7 The interest – not in order to create some kind of hubristic project of modernity was based on the oneiric ancestral line leading up to present dichotomy of society and nature, of subject and concerns, but in order to sound out the object; this enables the modern “work of limitations as well as the unfulfilled potential of purification,” the triumph of the subject and the various practices. Working though the relegation of nature and of non-moderns to the contradictions of, for instance, the Duchampian abyss of thought. Underneath this purifying readymade can help focus current debates – dichotomy, however, there is a disavowed 02/09 turning such a historical phenomenon into an continuity of networks, of hybrids; modern anachronistic intervention in the present. binary, “critical” thinking exists by virtue of the ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe rejection of the readymade by critics denial of this continuity, this world of “quasi- and artists such as Greenberg and Newman was objects” and “quasi-subjects” – that which is shaped by a fear of the collapse of categories, “between and below the two poles” of object and the fear of identity, of the work of art becoming subject.8 “Moderns do differ from premoderns by just another “arbitrary” object. In addition to this single trait: they refuse to conceptualize such critiques, which we may label conservative, quasi-objects as such. In their eyes, hybrids the 1960s saw the emergence of a second strand present the horror that must be avoided at all of anti-Duchampian discourse. Its proponents costs by a ceaseless, even maniacal were artists including Dan Graham, Robert purification.”9 Smithson, and Daniel Buren, and an important ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊLike all good caricatures, Latour’s portrayal point that their different criticisms had in of modernity presents some traits in sharp, even common was that Duchamp’s own practice was exaggerated clarity. And like many good and bad itself conservative in that it merely seemed to caricatures, it is one-sided and self-serving. If confirm and exploit the existing art-world we look carefully at modern theory and (art) structures and their power of definition.10 practice, it should be obvious that there have Apparently working on the assumption that been a number of significant attempts to go Duchamp’s work was fully accounted for by the beyond a static dichotomy of subject and object. then-emerging institutional theory of art, these Reexamining such moments can be of extreme artists felt that Duchamp merely used the Installation view of the “Good Design” exhibition at MoMA, 1951–1952. 09.17.12 / 20:11:27 EDT institution(s) of art to redefine objects as readymades became crucial at the moment when artworks, thus multiplying their aura, their the question of the relation between subject and fetishistic allure, and their value. As Robert object, between spirit and matter, became an Smithson put it, “there is no viable dialectic in overriding concern: when they placed their Duchamp because he is only trading on the activities “in the service of the revolution,” alienated object and bestowing on this object a entering into a difficult relationship with the kind of mystification.”11 party that claimed to represent and enact ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊSuch remarks were no doubt made in view 03/09 dialectical materialism, and which eyed the of Duchamp’s own commodification of his Surrealists’ idealist focus on dreams and visions readymades in the 1960s, with the Schwartz more than a little suspiciously. The Surrealists editions, and of the proliferation of Neo-Dada set out to prove that their approach in fact and Nouveau Réalisme objects, accumulations, complemented orthodox Marxism, in that and assemblages. This type of art object was Surrealism, “within the framework of dialectical tailor-made for the dismal science called the materialism, is the only method that accounts institutional theory of art, which it helped spawn, for the real links between the world and and which statements by artists such as Buren thought.”13 If dialectical materialism can cause and Smithson parallel. However, if we look bricks to be laid, then surely this relationship beyond the horizon of the 1960s reception of was of primary importance.14 Duchamp, at the repercussions of the readymade ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊOne of the issues of Le Surréalisme au among the Surrealists around 1930 in particular, service de la révolution contained a montage of things become rather more complicated and textual fragments on Hegel and Marx, which interesting. contrasted the lackluster number of Hegel’s ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊHegel saw modern art as bifurcating into on works available in French with the blockbuster the one hand a “realist” tendency that would sales of Hegel’s complete works in the Soviet show the surface of objects in minute Union, informing us that “the five year plan is “objectivity,” and on the other a “spiritual” founded on dialectics.”15 In the middle of a page tendency that would place all the emphasis on is a line drawing of Hegel’s death mask; Spirit the subject.12 For the Surrealists, Duchamp’s has become plaster. If the facts about the prices Drawing of Hegel’s death mask from Le Surréalisme au service de la révolution. 09.17.12 / 20:11:27 EDT André Breton’s crystal ball from the auction catalog André Breton. 42, rue Fontaine, 2003. 09.17.12 / 20:11:27 EDT and sales of Hegel’s works seem to fit into into the web of signification spun in Duchamp’s Aragon’s quite linear remarks on spirit notes. influencing things in the world, the death mask ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊWhen André Breton’s estate was auctioned complicates things. As an outmoded relic of the off, one of the items for sale was a semiotic nineteenth century, it is a Surrealist object par object par excellence: a fortune teller’s crystal excellence, but it is hardly operative in the ball that had been used in 1933 to illustrate contemporary world – unless one Breton’s text “Le Message automatique.”18 In his instrumentalizes it for the purpose of some 05/09 1925 “Lettre aux voyantes,” Breton had Stalinist personality cult. addressed the fortune-tellers, or “seers,” who ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊTo some extent, the Surrealist art of the had been marginalized by modern science: object represented an appropriation, a détournement of Duchamp’s project. Surrealist Mesdames, today my mind is wholly on objects were supposed to provide shocks, to give your disgrace.